New national planning policy framework published: Will it make a difference?

Last week, the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which took effect immediately. The updated version includes several changes designed to get more homes built, but will it make a difference? Public Affairs Manager Eleanor Bateman takes a closer look.

The Government has committed to “rebuilding Britain” and acted quickly, launching a consultation on reforming the planning system just a month after taking office.

The reforms aim to create a “pro-growth National Planning Policy Framework” (NPPF) and the revised Framework – which governs planning decisions and local plan making – came into effect on 12 December 2024.

What’s changed in the NPPF? 

The NPPF’s changes focus primarily on increasing the volume of housing delivery and boosting economic growth.

The Standard Method for calculating housing need has also been modified and becomes the mandatory starting point for assessing local housing need. The new formula results in a national annual requirement of 370,000 new dwellings per year, meaning that most local authorities will be unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing and will need to update their local plans accordingly. 

One of the most notable changes is to Green Belt land – that is the buffer intended to prevent urban sprawl. The NPPF introduces a new designation of Grey Belt, which is Green Belt land that will be released for development where certain conditions are met.

In an evidence session of the House of Lords Built Environment Select Committee this week, Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook MP and Director for Planning at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), William Burgon, were quizzed by the Chair, Lord Moylan, on whether the raft of planning changes – which include elements of the English Devolution White Paper and proposals to improve decision-making outlined in a planning reform working paper as well as new brownfield passports – are sufficiently joined-up, or if there are “cracks” between the policies. 

The minister replied that the Government’s planning policies had been well-thought out in opposition and are “fully coordinated” but stressed that the proposals outlined in the various papers are “initial consultations seeking views at a very early stage of policy development.” 

When asked about the effectiveness of its new Grey Belt designation, the minister explained that the Government doesn’t think a “significant” proportion of its housing target will be delivered on Grey Belt land, but that it is expected to provide a modest but important contribution to overall housing development.

Local planning authorities will assess and identify Grey Belt parcels through tailored reviews, supported by guidance set to be released next year. 

When asked about the introduction of a requirement for local authorities to review and potentially alter Green Belt boundaries, allowing for development where necessary, the Housing Minister replied that local authorities are required to exhaust all other options, such as brownfield sites, increased site density, and cross-boundary working, before considering Green Belt land for development. 

Do the changes go far enough?

The Government has made it clear that the revised NPPF is just the first step in its broader plans to deliver more homes.

Proposals to incorporate National Development Management Policies into the NPPF and a Planning and Infrastructure Bill set to be published next year will bring additional changes to the planning system. Alongside the recruitment of 300 additional planners to increase local authority resources and a Devolution Bill set to reform local government, it is clear the Government is attempting to reshape housing delivery to tackle the housing crisis.

However, as radical as some of these changes may be, the adjustments to affordable housing are relatively minimal, and reliance on the private sector persists. 

The Government has acted quickly to put its mark on the NPPF, but a commitment to invest in a meaningful programme of social housebuilding is still missing. While barriers, such as viability and resource availability, continue, the private sector alone will not succeed in delivering on the scale that is needed to tackle the housing crisis.

Government needs to be bolder still and develop a spatial strategy alongside a programme for delivery based on the efficient use of public sector land and resources. 

What’s next?

Now that the revised NPPF is in effect, attention turns to the measures councils must take to meet the updated requirements.

Local planning authorities (LPAs) currently preparing or revising their local plans will need to assess their position within the transitional arrangements.

Local authorities at advanced stages can continue under the existing framework if their housing needs align with the outlined thresholds, while others will need to adjust their plans to comply with the new rules. LPAs facing significant shortfalls will need to produce compliant plans within tight deadlines.

This shift represents a pivotal opportunity for local authorities to take a more strategic approach to planning. However, it also raises important questions about the additional demands these developments may impose on local resources, already under considerable pressure.

• Click here to read more about the NRLA's calls around housing supply here.